69 responses to “Inconceivable”

Senator, you keep posting about paying athletes and endorsement deals. Is your argument that we should allow an open field on paying players? Or is your argument that clearly: the market value of their compensation is certainly way more than a free education?

Anyone who argues that players like Chubb/etc. don’t have a market value well above “just a free education” is a complete fool. I’d even argue every player with a scholarship has a market value above “free tuition”.

But allowing a completely open market would be terrible for college football. It’d turn into a form of the MLB, where some schools with money would just buy teams like the Yankees. I firmly believe the solution is pay players, but every school must pay the exact same amount.

Those two questions you pose are not either/or, FWIW. The latter – answered in some form like “yes, player market value is greater than what they receive” is per se a part of any argument along the lines of the former.

That’s not what misnomer means. Also, that argument is a straw man. It doesn’t matter if some players continue to “whine” about fairness, nor should # of players “whining” about fairness be counted as an applicable standard for anything.

No way you would agree to such an arrangement with your employer where all the other employers in your field agreed to pay the same exact wage to everyone, regardless of ability, experience, etc. Far past time to break up the college cartel and force them to compete.

“There is unfortunately actually still slavery existing in our world.. Literal modern day slavery.. That was a very misinformed statement. I understand what point he was trying to make.. I just feel like he should have been advised a little differently.”

Peterson will be given the chance to clarify his comments, and we’re sure he’ll put it into better context. For now, it looks like another comment to add to the mix from players and owners that lacks perspective.

We keep hearing about this fight in the context of future generations of players. Of fighting for rights.

Let’s just call it what it is: Both sides are trying to equitably distribute a lot of money. More money than previous generations of players could imagine.

That’s worth fighting over, but let’s stop trying to make it sound heroic.”

Yes, it’s unreasonable for Peterson to call himself a slave. But it’s also unreasonable for colleges to make millions while claiming that the labor force shouldn’t be compensated. When your position sounds less reasonable than LaVar Ball, maybe you should take stock.

It’s an absolute crime that these kids have to wait until they’re 21 or 22 before reaping the monetary rewards of living, eating,health care, and getting a college education for free for the previous 3-4 years.

Snark aside, I do think the allowance for endorsements/sponsorship is stronger than just having the colleges give money to the players. But, I still don’t like the slippery slope of it. If it does go that way, then Fish Fry will be all the more glad Tech’s partnership w/ Russell went south. Could never get recruits that way.

Aside from that not being my main point, and aside from the fact that 2-3 years of football for the vast majority of players who never play again after college don’t experience any significant issues, I’m not sure how a $30,000 endorsement from Nike pre-tax is going to help that.

No aesthetics. No romanticism. If you can’t see the problems incumbent in paying college players and the road it leads down, then you probably ought to stop following college football if it ever starts to happen, because it will negatively change the game for which you clearly have an affinity.

If you want college players to be paid, regardless of what happens, then just say it. I’m cool with that.

How so? I thought that my point was that the free education, housing, eating, etc. was enough “pay,” and you believe the players should be allowed to make money off of any endorsements any company was willing to pay.

They’re not allowed to at this point, so, yes, “If this ever happens.”

I’d like to get you on my podcast once I get it up and running. I think that, while we differ on certain issues, you have always tended to make some valid points. Just so happens that you’re wrong here. 😉

If that’s your point, it’s poorly made. Again, that isn’t how you phrased the last comment I referred to.

You deny that romance or aesthetics plays a part in your stance, but you warn me about not liking college football if the players get paid. If the discussion is about personal preference, how is that not a matter of aesthetics?

I have put up with ESPN’s oversized role in remaking the sport. I’ve held my nose as conference expansion went its merry way. I’m stomaching, at least for the moment, how the CFP is changing college football’s orientation for the worse, from regional passion to national interest. But somehow you want me to believe that Nick Chubb signing a Nike contract while he’s at Georgia would be the straw that breaks the proverbial camel’s back.

I tell you what I think. I think I prefer Chubb getting paid to Green and Gurley getting suspended for four games for getting a pittance for their personal property. YMMV.

I’m not able to reply to your replies on this setup. Irregardless (sic), it’s not aesthetics. That implies a superficial, even inconsequential notion.

You think that I’m worried about how it looks. I couldn’t care less about the aesthetic of amateurism in college athletics. I just don’t want to see Nike having a say in Justin Fields going to Auburn because they’ve already spent their budgeted allotment on Georgia players. I don’t want to see Georgia not getting a power forward because Reebok has some money left for Kansas. Again, not aesthetics. That’s only the tip of the iceberg, mind you.

I tell you what I think. I think the rules as they stand right now for pay-for-play and any iteration thereafter are fine. If you are a player whose jersey w/ a signature is worth a damn, then you’re about to make a few hundred thousand or a million dollars in the NFL anyway. If you don’t believe that, then let me sell you an autographed Prather Hudson (who I love) jersey for fifty grand. I promise I’ll give him half.

Look, those couple points are over the top. I get that. But, again, it’s not about any kind of aesthetics or longing for the way things were. For me, it’s about a very real probability that college football will be FUBAR. Things change. I get that, too. But it’s not romanticism to want to maintain some semblance of things that are actually good.

You’re not making a legal argument against paying players and you’re not making an economic argument. You’re just saying that you don’t want it to happen, “just because,” and then stating that your position isn’t personal.

This is one of the things I love about this debate. Since we can’t figure out how to deal with the aftermath — slippery slope! Pandora’s Box! — let’s just let the NCAA keep screwing players.

Those of you who are worried about unforeseen consequences are the ones who should be speaking out now about the NCAA getting its collective head out of its collective ass and taking the lead to come up with a more equitable alternative to amateurism. It’s likely to make you happier than what’ll come in a post-Kessler world.

I think one of the issues (of which there are literally hundreds) is the fact kids have no alternative to college football. Given that no one, to my knowledge, has ever tried to set up a professional league for those not interested in attending college is both surprising and telling. What it says to me is the product wouldn’t make enough money to be worth the sizable investment. Does the NFL use the NCAA as their de facto minor leagues…..yes. But, that is not the NCAA’s fault. Kids might have some theoretical market value IF there was competition, but unless and until it exists it is just that.

Obviously, I cannot control whether the kids get paid, but the college sports will radically change if they do. Will the Dawgs ultimately become “The Bulldogs sponsored by University of Georgia”

Ozam, there are semi-pro leagues that almost nobody ‘graduates’ to the NFL from, and they’ve tried tying the World League of American Football to NFL teams.

I think the interesting scenario is MLB, where you see a significant amount of players from both the college and straight-to-the-minors ranks, although the international community plays a big part in the latter.

Football is different for a lot of reasons. The NFL teams do enjoy having a “farm system” that they don’t have to invest any money in. At the same time, the Gwinnett Braves do not give their players a free college education.

I am not sure we are disagreeing, although the WFL and similar leagues are/were post college. Not that this is on point, but I’ve read that the minor leaguers, for the most part, make minimum wage at best when you factor in all the hours

Start a semipro league with all the money and sponsorships your heart can bear.

For college, allow students that were otherwise admitted for their academic standards – and are enrolled taking the same classes and meeting the same criteria as everyone else, living in the same dorms and taking the same classes as everyone else – play football for a scholarship which grants free tuition, room and board.

I can tell you which one of those I would still watch and which one I wouldn’t give a shit about.

Which one? I feel like you’re being sarcastic, but I seriously can’t tell. With your second option you basically just described the club teams that already exist and that nobody gives a shit about (and never will). The first option is where players like Todd Gurley, AJ Green, and Knowshon Moreno would end up. That’s what everyone would watch and that’s where the TV money would go. Don’t believe me? When’s the last time you saw a nationally televised game between former football powerhouses Yale and Harvard on a prime time broadcast (or any channel at any time). Whaaaat? You mean their commitment to academic excellence doesn’t trump their complete lack of talent compared to the SEC??? How shocking!!!

I have a solution. To me this comes down to choice. So lets give them a choice.

Remove the time requirement to get drafted. Allow these young men to declare for the pros right out of high school if they feel so inclined. If they decide not to then their options are to get paid whatever they are paying in the canadian league or some other semi-pro team, or they can take a scholarship that is offered them and follow the rules that come with it. At least this way they have a choice, same as any other working stiff. For those that argue that most kids are not physically, and emotionally, mature enough for the pros right out of high school, I would agree. Hence my argument that college serves a purpose toward their final goal. I have known people who have interned during, and after, college just practically nothing just for the experience. Same, same.

As for possible medical problems 10 years down the road, again that is a choice they have made.

Simple solution, create an entity that every team pays, which then pays every scholarship player equally. Easy solution for how much is put it would be to set it to 10% of all coaching salaries. This ensures that places that are cool throwing money around because they have it will eat the brunt, while schools that can barely afford a coach are not stuck with a bill that forces them to lose more money.

Good move by NIke. Especially in the recent history of professional sports.
Chubb comes across as a very solid person…class and character.
Once he commits he is in. A legit, bona fide team player.
Not discounting he can damn sure play football.
Nike like the SEC has to compete hard. Few compete as hard as Chubb.
NCAA cannot and should not put value on teams, colleges, and its players.
Do so and you destroy a lot of its value.
FMV for Chubb and Nike, negotiating once he hit the market, the professional sports market.

I happen to agree with you Senator, payers should be paid. However, I would not be so dismissive of the “slippery slope ” argument. Ever heard of Vietnam? What could possibly go wrong if we just send a few “advisors ” to help out South Vietnam?